Re: [802SEC] Term limits
Bob,
On 2/15/2005 10:52 PM, Grow, Bob wrote:
> Colleagues:
>
> Since there has been some discussion (thank you all), I'll respond to
> the comments (also acting as a summary).
>
> Ajay -- I'm not sure of your point on the "overhanging election". Is
> your problem with the WG deciding in advance to allow an otherwise term
> limited Chair to run again, or was it you basically agreeing that any
> rules change should be completed in consultation with our WG/TAGs well
> before the March 2006 elections loom over us?
My only point was that "if" the assumption is that there is an "incumbency
influence" then the 75% WG approval (option #4 in your email) should be obtained
independent of a particular Chair/Vice-Chair's extension re-election and not at
the time of end of an 8-year term.
I also feel that any rules change in this matter should be in consultation with
WG/TAG to avoid the "appearance of conflict of interest".
>
> I did consult 802.3 at a past meeting and there was some support for
> term limits, but more sentiment that forcing someone they are happy with
> out of office is not good. (During this discussion as part of full
> disclosure, I did note that the 802.3 Vice Chair will be term limited in
> March 2006.) Option #4 came from the floor during that discussion
> (someone with experience in another standards group having a
> supermajority excemption). I think I did ask WG Chairs to consider
> consulting their groups when we discussed this during the EC meeting, so
> either my memory or that of other EC members has failed if similar
> consultation hasn't occured.
>
> I personally think it prudent to involve my WG before voting on this
> type of rule change. (I also did it before starting to advocate for a
> TBD change.) It will appear to some of our members that we may have a
> conflict of interest when we vote on such a rules change. (For some it
> may be a real conflict of interest, for others only a perceived conflict
> of interest.) I personally plan to take a WG vote if a rules change on
> this progresses before I cast a final vote of approval.
>
>
> Pat -- I agree with you that whatever we do, hybernating WGs should not
> have their Chairs' term limited.
>
>
> Tony, John, Mike -- Trust people familiar with a parlimentary systems to
> support a "vote of no confidence" approach. The current rule doesn't
> have the elgegance of a no confidence vote. Instead the current rule
> pragmatically requires something more akin to a coup d'etat, something
> more familiar to those of us schooled on the "virutes" of the American
> revolution. Being one of those (and one that also took comparitive
> government) I still find some advantage to simply throwing the bum out
> at the earliest opportunity. Is your preference to add no confidence or
> replace the current provision?
>
> Steve, Tony -- My significant slipup on not thinking about TAG Chairs
> Steve, but they aren't covered by the term limit subclause. So in the
> spirit of egalitarianism advocated by Tony, any limit and or exemption
> from limits should apply equally and rationally should extend to TAGs
> and other EC posisions. This one gets quite convoluted in the rules
> though, I'll have to think about it. To satisfy those in support of no
> limit if hybernating WG, perhaps make it so any limit/exemption
> remaining applies to all voting EC positions.
>
> Tony -- The "at least" wordsmithing suggestion to #4 noted though I
> prefer "75% majority vote" which doesn't imply the exact 75% per RROR.
>
> Mike -- I had thought about specifying that the vote to exempt from term
> limits occur at the prior plenary meeting. It works for normal
> elections and would also allow one returning from hiatus to similarly
> seek re-election through term limit exemption. But, I haven't figured
> out how to make it work if you "throw the bum out" per the immediate
> election rule and want to go back to the tried and true former chair
> (unless for this specific case the exception to term limits rule was
> allowed also to be immediate). Getting pretty complicated. Do we also
> have reason to be concerned about the case where the Chair announces
> his/her retirement in November but before March gets convinced that the
> best alternative is to re-up?
>
> All -- I'll take another shot at #4 text and see if I can fix the
> appealing "tweaks" above. It might create a clearer differentiation
> between removing the text per #2 and a fairly verbose rewriting of #4
> (possibly changing other sections). Proposing my alternative #2 is
> easy, we'll see what I can come up with on a tweaked #4.
>
> --Bob
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ajay Rajkumar [mailto:ajayrajkumar@lucent.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 3:57 PM
> To: Grow, Bob
> Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Term limits
>
> Even though last several emails on this subject seem to indicate that
> option #4
> has a lot of appeal, let me offer another view.
>
> As option #1 rationale stated "It is too difficult to overcome the
> power/influence of incumbency without term limits", option #4 still does
> not
> address this.
>
> Since option #4 would be tested at the time a Chair/Vice-Chair is up for
> re-election, the same "power/influence of incumbency" would be in
> action.
>
> One way to address that may be to get some feedback from the WGs now
> without the
> influence of an overhanging election of a Chair/Vice-Chair.
>
> -ajay
>
> On 2/11/2005 6:36 PM, Grow, Bob wrote:
>
>>Colleagues:
>>
>>We discussed possible changes on term limits at a prior EC meeting,
>>though I doubt that all requirements of 7.1.6.1 were fulfilled. Out
>
> of
>
>>fairness to all, if we are going to change this, it should be resolved
>>by November 2005 at the latest.
>>
>>I want to try to determine the preferences of the EC on this matter
>>before advocating any specific change in March.
>>
>>At present, the specific text within 7.2.2 reads:
>>
>>"An individual who has served as Chair or Vice Chair of a given
>
> Working
>
>>Group for a total of more than eight years in that office may not be
>>elected to that office again."
>>
>>One common rationale would be the desire to retain the services of a
>>willing and capable officer rather than that officer being arbitrarily
>>forced out. There is less than universal agreement on what approach to
>>take for this, but I remember four clear alternatives:
>>
>>1. Leave term limits as is.
>>
>>Rationale: Term limits do open up leadership opportunities for
>
> people.
>
>>It is too difficult to overcome the power/influence of incumbency
>>without term limits.
>>
>>2. Strike the entire paragraph.
>>
>>Rationale: The rules allow replacement of WG officers at any plenary
>>meeting (7.2.2). Working Groups in the past would have liked to have
>>kept a term-limited Chair.
>>
>>3. Change to read: "An individual who has served as Chair of a given
>>Working Group for a total of more than eight years in that office may
>>not be elected to that office again."
>>
>>Rationale: Term limiting the Chair only still opens up leadership
>>opportunities at the top, allowing either a Vice Chair to move up or
>>someone new to take the Chair position. A Vice Chair may with to
>>continue in his/her role rather than take the Chair position. WGs
>
> with
>
>>multiple Vice Chairs arbitrarily limit those people by term limits
>
> even
>
>>though they may be changing responsibilities within the WG (Moving
>
> from
>
>>2nd Vice Chair to 1st Vice Chair).
>>
>>4. Change to read: "An individual who has served as Chair or Vice
>>Chair of a given Working Group for a total of more than eight years in
>>that office may only be eligible for election to that office again as
>>the result of a motion passed by 75% of the voting members present."
>>
>>Rationale: Just as we currently grant the WG the ability to elect a
>
> new
>
>>Chair at any plenary session by 75% vote, the WG should have similar
>>latitude to retain a Chair independent of term limits.
>>
>>My preferences lean toward options 4 or 3. (Just to be clear, I find
>
> it
>
>>inconceivable that I personally will ever test the term limits.)
>>
>>Comments and preferences appreciated.
>>
>>--Bob Grow
>>---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.